Slashdot Mirror
A New Report Finds No Evidence That People Will Work Less Under a Universal Basic Income (theoutline.com)
Economists Djavad Salehi-Isfahani and Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooeifrom for the Economic Research Forum have released a new report on the results of a basic income scheme launched in Iran in 2011. "In 2011, in response to heavy cuts to oil and gas subsidies, Iran implemented a program that guaranteed citizens cash payments of 29 percent of the nation's median income, which amounts to about $1.50 every day (about $16,000 per year in the U.S.)," reports The Outline. Here are the key findings: The report found no evidence for the idea that people will work less under a universal income, and found that in some cases, like in the service industry, people worked more, expanding their businesses or pursuing more satisfying lines of work. The researchers did find that young people -- specifically people in their twenties -- worked less, but noted that Iran never had a high level of employment among young people, and that they were likely enrolling in school with the added income. The evidence presented in the paper is compelling, but the anecdotal belief that handing people money will make them lazy is hard to shake. "The findings in this paper do not settle this question," the report's authors point out. "What we have accomplished is at the very least to shift the burden of proof on this issue to those who claim cash transfer [sic] make poor people lazy, and to show the need for better data and more research."
It seems obvious that if people can do something they will, but what? Who knows. Hobby or Job, or accidental community service via picking up trash.
I would work less if I didn't have to work for my income. Am I the only one?
per year extra hell yah I'd still work (Mind you I own my own business) but still $1200 extra per month is a lot of money to do things lots of people wouldn't be able to do other wise. Hell with $1200 extra I could use that to run a second online business.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
yea becouse I'd believe anything coming out of Iran ... not. /. is really stretching here.
Where the money would come from. Google says there are 243,000,000 working age people in the US. Multiplied by $16,000 that is
$3888000000000
lol
What would stop employers from lowering their salaries by whatever the "universal income" amount might be, thus reducing their salary expenses, and leaving the employees with the same net (minus any credits they'd get for stuff like social security, etc)?
You'd rather live in Iran than the US.
I am pretty sure I only work to be able to keep up my lifestyle, which is around 15k. The 45k on top of that is a nice-to-have.
The argument against basic income is not about laziness, it's where the money comes from. Gather 5 of your friends and implement basic income. Those who earn less than the BI gets paid by money collected from those who earn more than the BI. Post back the results. Do it among 10, 20, or 30 of friends, all without the need for any government or politicians. Good luck.
then I'm sure it'll work everywhere else in the world.
After all, Iran is just like every other country in the world.
does it finally explain how to fund it? Math on Basic Income doesn't add up. Lets say, for example, that a nationwide basic income were established whereby all citizens received $12k per year. That is just $1k per month, not a livable income in most parts of the country by any means. Would it shock you to discover that would take more than the entire federal income tax revenue per year? On average citizens pay ~$11k/year in income tax.
... either we have to cut pretty much the entire federal budget to fund Basic Income, or we have to increase taxes. Lets say your average Joe who pays the average $11k/yr is increased to pay $22k/yr in taxes ... but they get back $12k/yr in Basic Income ... so they are only out ~$10k. Now, look at the rich ... those who won't miss that extra $11k/yr in taxes ... they are pretty much unaffected. And flip that around to the poor who pay pretty much no income tax, they still pay pretty much nothing, so they are clearly the benefactors as they get an extra $12k/yr.
So
Basic Income is essentially nothing more than another welfare paid for by the middle class. Lets call it what it is instead of sugar coating it to make it look like magic money is going to make everybody's life better.
Then they did not bother to look!
Now we are supposed to base public policy based on data Iran collected?..
But, hey, why not try this in Venezuela now? Surely, Maduro will listen to the foreign fans of Bolivarian revolution...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
$1.50 x 365 = $547.50 Nowhere near $16K
Somebody learned math using common core techniques ..... and failed miserably.
Liberals love Muslims.
The key to not turning it into a disincentive to work - everyone has to get it. There can be no phase out based on income. Everyone, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, everyone. It will be supremely tempting to decree that some people don't "need" it and therefore anyone with an income over X doesn't get it, but as soon as you do that it isn't universal income, it's a handout.
Unfortunately, automation will displace more jobs than it creates. The question is, do we embrace the Ubuntu group's solution, or, will some technology get invented that helps stir the creation of more jobs than not? Time will tell. :)
Slashdot headline reads "A New Report Finds No Evidence That People Will Work Less Under a Universal Basic Income" yet quoted in the article "The researchers did find that young people - specifically people in their twenties - worked less"
Sooo... yea. I realize Slashdot has become a new social justice platform but c'mon, this is at least the third universal basic income propaganda post of the week and it's certainly stretching the boundaries of legitimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
People would lie about this. DUH
Anyone pushing UBI seems to forget that UBI will simply offset the Cost Of Living and Inflation indexes thereby negating it. Just like with minimum wage it would be an ever increasing value as any change in it would be shortly thereafter negated by inflation.
...that paid me under the table, while collecting my UBI...
Yes, I'd abuse the hell out of it.
On the political right (Republican/Conservative) their view are set in stone: giving people money for nothing will make them lazy! The big problem with "Free money" is that people will work even harder to avoid jobs that are dangerous, people that are abusive, and employers that cheat and steal from employees. They will cry out to their dying day that people who don't want to work 20 hours a day for pennies (per day) are lazy! Basic minimum incomes allow people to live reasonably well while trying to improve their lives in other ways. They can start their own businesses and supplement their incomes. Diversifying economies and small business create jobs. Big business destroys jobs (when two large companies merge, they *always* shed 'overlap' staff). Later they 'right-size' (fire) more people. One problem with where we are now is that 'Alpha' baby-boomers (born 1945-1955) had easy small student loans, easy access to well paying full time jobs (with benefits and pensions), and all you had to do is basically not die and you could get well off. Each subsequent 20 year group has had it had it progressively harder. But this group (Donald Trump is one), never knew hardship, and so have a hard time understanding why later generations can't "just do what we did duh!" They don't get it. Their student loans (4 year university) totalled $600, not $60000, a new 4 bedroom house cost $60,000 (not $600,000), and if you finished university, the job-finders would find you, they never had to take 2 part time jobs and keep them 10 years after graduating because their just isn't anything else. Somehow it will always wind up being your fault. They miss that economic conditions have changed. They refuse to catch up with reality. They are all like Donald Trump.
yea becouse I'd believe anything coming out of Iran ... not. /. is really stretching here.
Right, because Iran has no one capable of doing studies like this, since it's a country in the Dark Ages. All of the Iranians among graduate students and faculty at top US universities are then...ghosts?
I acquired a passive income 15 years ago that was roughly equivalent to a UBI. I left my job and let someone else have that income while I developed a new business that I never could have built otherwise. Awesome result with one big caveat: After 10 years my passive income started looking less secure and I suddenly realised I'd been kidding myself about how hard I'd been working. I doubled my productivity instantly.
I had become less productive with a guaranteed income, but even so the effort has given our community a new business that brings in tourist dollars.
May be the perfect formula doesn't actually require 40 hours per week. Maybe we can afford for most people to be a bit less productive (call it more lazy if you like).
I say we should give UBI a try - at least throw a moderate budget into some more thorough research.
Worse -- under performing H1-B holders.
More like mid-east culture is not the same as North American culture with regards to work. Iran may do very well under a UBI scheme. IDK I'm not Iranian. But It would take quite a lot of coercion/tyranny to make it work in North America.
Socialism has nothing to do with Venezuela and you damned well know it. Maduro is NOT a socialist. He's a corrupt dictator who is tearing down the socialist constructs of that country. In other words, as usual, it is another case of conservative authoritarians who are fleecing the country. Reason: CORRUPTION! Human Nature!
What's it matter if people work less due to UBI? If a UBI is implemented due to automation permanently displacing jobs at a faster rate than new jobs can be created, then it would be expected that people would be working less. Even if that's not the case, it's not necessarily due to laziness. Many old people who would/should be retired, find work because their retirement savings/pension/social security payments are inadequate for their lifestyle (or any lifestyle, potentially.) Others are effectively disabled, alcoholic, or otherwise 'can' work but only at great disadvantage, generally through no fault of their own; many of these people are considered unemployable. Others aren't disabled but have some medical issue (arthritis etc.) that causes great pain doing any work; some people hurt standing for long periods of time, or can't sit still for long periods of time. Are these people 'lazy'? If so, does that mean they deserve to starve to death in the gutter?
As easy, unambitious jobs go away, layabouts won't suddenly rise to the occasion and gain some professional skills; they'll complain that there's no jobs, and continue being leeches (usually, on their family and friends.) In reality I don't think many of these people exist, they tend to either a) do odd jobs, or bounce from job to job constantly, or b) are low-grade criminals, petty thieves et cetera. In both cases, it probably costs society less to just hand them some money to leave the rest of society alone.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
You've got cause and effect backwards. People largely abuse drugs and alcohol to cope with things like their shitty jobs.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Venezuela's main problem is caused by the oil prices crashing. They already had to spend more than other oil exporting countries for extracting and refining it's oil for export. That cut into their profit margins but was a minor issue when oil was priced at $100 per barrel. They doubled down on their problems when they started nationalizing foreign assets and dictating prices to the point where companies were losing money on every thing they produced.
I call bs because my own experience , myself. I've turned into a lazy ass mf since I stopped working. my intent was to find something better. I effectively have savings that give me ubi for several years. it's been 4 years. I can go another 4-16 depending on what you consider ubi levels (also depends on where. SF, NYC, London would shorten things considerably .
I haven't achieved anything in that time. I could go to school but would feel out of place hanging around people 30 yrs younger. I could volunteer but that doesn't really interesting me. my general experience with volunteering is "not my people". I've worked on several personal projects but that's not leading to better jobs. effectively I just slack off reading facebook and tech news. the only thing that seems likely to change that is random luck finding djg. something that really turns me on or running out of money
Medicare makes me sick. Food Stamps make me hungry. UBI makes me lazy.
If you don't see the pattern, I'll put it more simply. People don't need free money to be lazy. People who work are often very bad at spending money. Those who burn through their own money find a way to leach off those who don't. Nothing about UBI changes this. The one major thing it changes is increasing who can be leached off of.
*shrug* Based on economics, UBI will definitely cause some people to leave the job market. It'll cause price and wage increases. It will also get the same sort of complains minimum wage does (as does medicare). Yet one enacted for 4 or 5 years, you'll see the same blowback the Republicans are seeing for their plans to repeal Obamacare. So, yea, good luck getting it enacted in the first place.
PS - On a side note, I'd like to see Obamacare repealed. Mostly because the whole attempt to shift the liability from hospitals who have to take any emergency case (to get Medicare/Medicaid) to the people who actually have the emergency (by requiring insurance) doesn't work if people won't buy insurance. At that level, we might as well just increase the Medicare/Medicaid tax and have universal healthcare for emergencies instead of using insurance to indirectly pay hospitals. Once we're there, we should just go all universal healthcare. Of course, that'd also involve changing the way residencies are paid (moving it from a federal funded thing to a mandatory requirement to accept Medicare/Medicaid and having the position quota be not decided by the AMA (which is interested in keeping physician salaries high) would help a lot). Again, *shrug*
Except that one big problem with our current welfare system is that if you work, you lose welfare benefits, and this creates a disincentive against working. A Universal Basic Income would come with no such restrictions.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
What, a headline doesn't include all of the nuances? What seems to be happening is that young people are focusing on things like education, since they can afford more of it now.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There was no evidence that people who got paid some cash allowance didn't work, except for the age group where the amount was material (the young).
That's quite a different conclusion than the headline would suggest.
and don't mature and work more as they age. Also, when did social justice become a bad thing?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
UBI would mean people would quit shitty low paying jobs until the employers realize that shit jobs need to be paid better. UBI would displace welfare and other handout programs. Would people not work possible a little more in the short term simply because many of us are just burnt out. In the mean time the job market would balance out. A side benefit to UBI would be innovation people would have the freedom to pursue new ideas and their passions. A side effect to this is increased productivity because when people are actually doing what they love then they tend to do it MORE,
That right there is the fly in the ointment. Simply working isn't enough. You have to do work producing something other people want, not necessarily what you want. Work has value because it produces something other members of society are demanding. If a UBI allows you to quit a productive job in order to start an unproductive one (e.g. artist), the net result is that the country's productivity decreases, and the standard of living drops. (Which means the UBI has to be increased to keep it at the level of "basic", starting a vicious cycle of continuing productivity declines and UBI increases.)
As an extreme example, nobody wants to collect garbage, repair toilets, clean septic tanks, etc. But because it's needed, society pays a lot for it - enough to entice some individuals to live with the stink and do it for a living. If a UBI causes some of these people to quit and take up more "satisfying" lines of work, the prices of these services will go up, resulting in less income available for people to spend on other things, resulting in the UBI not buying as much as it used to, resulting in the government increasing the UBI to compensate for its decreased purchasing power, resulting in more people switching to more "satisfying" work, resulting in more prices going up, etc.
The economy wants to price things according to how much society values it. Attempting to thwart that with a UBI or minimum wage doesn't make that tendency disappear. The economy just interprets that as damage to the system, and routes around it - by devaluing the currency to lessen the impact of the fixed value of the UBI or minimum wage on prices.
Hahahahahahaha!
That's a negative, ghost rider. That trope is old and worn out. 11 Billion dollars went missing from the state-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela. That's corruption. Those banditos also refuse to pay all their suppliers and labor. Where'd all that money go? Must have been given to druggies in the streets right? Reuters has articles showing the kickback schemes that were worth millions. All you have to do is google "reason Venezuela collapse" and you'll get tons of stories. Most mention oil in passing usually at the bottom of the list. Venezuela supposedly has the world's largest oil reserves and they make so much money that oil dropping 50% in value should still net them plenty of money- unless it's being skimmed off the top. More corruption- and that's not speculation- Maduro and his cronies are under (a stalled) investigation for it. Commandeering foreign assets? Now why would they do that? Oh yeah free money. Who's gonna stop them? Look, the order of operations shows you what has happened. While Chavez was no saint, when he ran it, he knew enough to only steal a little money so as not to kill the cash cow. Maduro has gone full vampire and sucked the cow dry. Yet somehow, this is socialism's fault instead of good old fashioned greedy latino dictators. This same thing can happen here in the capitalist America. Look at all the laws congress has been passing while we're arguing about where a person can shit or what the fuck covfefe means. One example is Marsha Blackburn selling us out to Comcast and Verizon. If the repubs get too damned greedy, like they are wont to do, then we'll get us another housing(or whatever) collapse and recession. Oh you forgot about 2008?
He's a corrupt dictator who is tearing down the socialist constructs of that country.
I'm confused. A panel of dictators is better?
The Left's target, and the dictator's target, is always the same: "Here's something that takes precedence over individual rights". Once that's accomplished, it's a guaranteed slide into hell. The only question is how fast the trip is.
US dollars aren't worth shit anymore. $100,000 in 2017 dollars = $10,000 in 2010 dollars.
"What we have accomplished is at the very least to shift the burden of proof on this issue to those who claim cash transfer [sic] make poor people lazy,
No you/they haven't. Burden of proof to support a costly program or scheme does not work that way: You have the burden, and your concept doesn't have merit until you've proven it ---- showing a little bit of evidence doesn't change the burden of proof to someone else's. The burden of proof remains to show that Universal Basic Income provides more value than it costs in order to justify this radical scheme.
As for the evidence that providing Food or resources without having to work for it promotes Laziness or failing results ---- the strong exemplars of this happening are readily available throughout history. Communism/Socialism to any degree reduces production and doesn't create sustainable economies; history's littered with numerous examples...
Oh please. I made no such allusion at all. Using your logic, we have a panel of dictators here in America. They're called The House, The Senate, and the Supreme Court (and we don't even get a choice with these judges). That is ridiculous. The raiding of the state's coffers is the issue. And I mean actual raiding, as in stealing. Taxes, entitlements, subsidies, etc are not stealing. That is wealth that is recirculated in the general economy. I mean when people like Maduro take the money and buy themselves a new mansion or a yacht or whatever. That is to the benefit of a single person as opposed to the general welfare of the nation.
Also please explain how the following sentence is not correct: "The Right's target, and the dictator's target, is always the same: "Here's something that takes precedence over individual rights"." I'm 40. The right has never, not once, given the people any individual rights as you claim. Name one. They're always taking them away. We've been sliding into said hell here in the US and its worst incarnations so far (cause it started way earlier) are because of the Patriot act. That was a Republican thing. All the stuff conservatives bitch about the Dems doing have been proven time and time again to be exactly what they are doing themselves. Guilty dogs bark and they bark a lot and loudly. Keep barking so we know where you guys are, ok?
Would some people be completely unproductive with their "extra" free time? Absolutely. Problems we have with our current welfare system would be exacerbated greatly. People that currently work to afford drug and alcohol addictions would now have no need to work, so society as a whole gains a dependent class at the expense of those who want to produce. Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.
...
Even assuming all that were true, it wouldn't necessarily make it a bad idea. The question is what effect it has in the aggregate. For just one or two examples, consider that there is a HUGE percentage of poor people who have to spend so much of their time navigating badly designed and underfunded social aid systems that they find it very difficult to find new jobs or keep their jobs. If someone has housing, it makes it much easier for them to get a job. So while there may be negative effects from this, there are also potential positive effects from a universal basic income. Which is why it should be studied until we understand it better.
Real lawyers write in C++
If I had a UBI I'd continue to do the desktop support I do for the old folks, but I'd quit the part time job I have at the market and spend twice the time volunteering at the library teaching retired folks and grade school kids computer literacy. In other words I'd continue working at the job I find personally fulfilling and drop the drudge work. The underlying issue is still healthcare and future retirement. Would the UBI provide enough money to pay for the health care that I need now, and how long would I receive a UBI past retirement age ? I don't look forward to eating cat food as an retired old man. Luckily I have 20+ years of paying into social security and house payment or such as of now. So if and when I can no longer work I will only have property tax, house maintenance and such very basic expenses, provided social security in some form survives.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
yea becouse I'd believe anything coming out of Iran ... not. /. is really stretching here.
Right. I mean, they probably even disregard the scientific method and still fight over things like whether global warming and evolution are real.
Real lawyers write in C++
Except that one big problem with our current welfare system is that if you work, you lose welfare benefits, and this creates a disincentive against working. A Universal Basic Income would come with no such restrictions.
Which is why as a relatively conservative/liberation. I am all for it! But we need to come to accept that people who work will be able to afford more and nicer things. The income should be enough to get by in most of the country but it ain't going to pay for rent and food in Beverly Hills or even a nicer suburb.
BI looks at the problem at the wrong end, letting employers off the hook - versus obligating them to hire and retain more citizens.
Existing programs similar to BI in the US (SSI/SSDI) already have a negative effect on work, as employers have no real obligation to hire from them.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
$1.50 every day (about $16,000 per year in the U.S.).
perhaps we should define some units, as the math with $'s here is a little off...
I wonder if Linus is part of the trial. https://www.weforum.org/agenda...
... also another major point is that Venezuela has had an unprecedented drought that's stuck since 2013. That's not hard to check out, and it's crippled agriculture. Coupled with the sustained drop in oil prices, these two factors have in fact devastated food production and imports simultaneously.
The other side of the coin is in fact a thing called "price controls" and those aren't necessarily a socialist measure, they're a tactic used by many governments when inflation is getting out of hand. This is the really big mistake Maduro made. Price controls cause a discrepancy between the official price and the black market price, leading to hoarding and speculation, which causes further inflation, and necessitates rationing of the controlled-price good, thus leading to long queues. The insidious thing about price controls is that they *create* shortages even if there's plenty of production, because they can create a speculative bubble in the price-controlled asset.
If (FTA) "handing people money will make them lazy" then that means *EVERY* person who started with either wealthy parents or a trust fund is inherently lazy.
There should be a 100% "Death Tax" to address this epidemic of laziness. /sarcasm
Idiots....
The system is actually closer to what central Europe has than what's going on in Venezuela. And we're currently stress testing whether the system works when thousands over thousands of people flock into it...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"but the anecdotal belief that handing people money will make them lazy is hard to shake."
Isn't the entire point of UBI to provide people with a decent minimum income in spite of fewer jobs being available due to increased automation? That means that on average people will be working less.
Saying that the "greater something" is more important than individual rights is leftist now? "You are nothing, your people is everything" and all that?
Wow, and they told me at school that Fascism was a right wing ideology...
Please understand finally that extremism wants to take your liberties. Left or right doesn't really matter here, any extremist ideology puts the ideology over your personal freedoms.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.
Actually I think this is precisely the problem with communism that UBI solves. The socialist extreme is that everyone gets the same amount and that doesn't work because you need to retain the concept that you get more for doing more valuable work or what is the point. The un-taxed capitalist extreme is that everyone gives out their money in exchange for the things they want, this gives control out in proportion to wealth, naturally we all avoid loosing our money so this also doesn't work because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. With UBI, people are indiscriminately protected from poverty to some extent, but at the same time work is rewarded, just less, retaining the motivation to work. Also I'd like to add that in my experience addiction and poverty are associated, which if you understand addiction, makes sense. If we recuse those people from poverty, many of them will also be rescued from addiction.
Actually, freedom and capitalism reign supreme in the overwhelming majority of World's shitholes. But popular immigration destinations, such as US, have a much stronger social support system than average: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending
I don't even think that people would. Yes, many would quit lousy jobs, but equally many would notice that they need to replace something in their home or need to buy something, and need a few 100 bucks. They would notice that working 3 weeks as a burger flipper would give them that. And if that's all they're qualified for, they'll do just that.
And given the unemployment situation in the, let's say, less qualified group of the population, you'll always find someone who needs to make a few 100 and who will take the spatula for a week or two.
You'll have an extreme fluctuation, but you will find people to do those jobs.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The thing is, people whop work just to get money to fund an addiction are most likely working jobs that are going to be gone anyway in the next couople of decades. That is, someone working a warehousing or a fast food job just to be able to afford booze is not going to be able to find work in the future regardless because automation is already making such jobs obsolete and is only going to keep going.
Bullshit. The very poiint of this story for example is to point out that the people who can work will not work any less under UBI because you still get more money if you work rather than just being on the UBI. The incentive to work if you can and those raise your standard of living is still there,
Ah, this argument again. I live in Finland, you know, one of those 'socialist' that offers free healthcare and education with tax money. We have an extensive welfare system already and are also trialing UBI to replace/modernize the wellfare system to make it more flexible. Other countries that have similar systems include but are not limited to: sweden, norway, denmark, Germany, France, etc And last I checked, the US has a social security system also funded by taxes.
There's some sort of weird american myopia, in which the only alternatives seem to be an massive oligarchy á la Russia or modern day US where the top 0,1 % is doing insanely well, the next 9,9 % are doing alright and then the middle and low-income classes are going down, or a 3rd world hellhole. This is just one giant strawman and the age old 'no social policies can ever work because the soviet union' -argument which is utter BS. The advanced European economies have been working as de facto socialist states for the better part of half a century, yet somehow conveniently we are always ignored in these conversations even though we've been far more successful in the implementation of these policies than the 3rd world countries that you just listed. We outperform the US in basic education and health, people are happier, there's less violent crime, less corruption etc. Quoting the study on happiness:
But sure, keep looking at Venezuela if it makes you feel good.
We have both a capitalistic system (a capitalistic economy does not prevent strong social policies) and a multi-party representational democracy. And if I had to choose, I'd much rather stay here (on in any other
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Even more bullshit because the only social safety net USSR had was meant for disabled people. Every able-bodied person had the duty to work and earn a wage. Oh, and the current European social safety nets were established in the late 19th century, several decades before the Soviet Union was created.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
And Drumpf hates them so much, that's why he's selling half a trillion in weapons to Saudi Arabia or bombing the Syrian military every now and then.
The key flaw in your post is that you seem to think that UBI is communism when it is anything but.
People want to work under a UBI system precisely because of the "B". "Basic".
Want a smart phone? Gonna have to work for it. Want a TV? Gonna have to work for it. want a car? Gonna have to work for it. Unlike communism where there is no incentive for hard work, under UBI the people have shit-tons. Any material desire beyond the basic requires a job.
Then you go on to make terrible analogies to failed states that operated under completely different systems. Please educate yourself before you post again on this topic.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
All religious communities are socialist economies by their nature. All religions dictate that it is a sin that you go to bed with a full tummy while your neighbor is starving. You have to share. It has different names in all religions but in Islam, it is known as Fitrah (or something sounding very similar to this) and if you are above average wealth, you have to donate 1/40th of all your worldly possession to the mosque and the honest people (of my ass if you ask me) like mullah and imam's, will distribute these donations to the needy. Iran runs with sharia laws. So, a basic income without the government mandate is a very plausible set up for their citizens. For them, UBI is just a name change and provider change for the income. Here in the US, I see ton of welfare mothers with 3-4 children in their tow, shopping at the supermarket and buying the most expensive cut of meat and mist expensive cheese they can get their hands on. Of course, their off the book boyfriend is providing them the necessities and the welfare money is their ticket to luxury items. Giving them UBI may just take the burden of giving birth, unless of course they can double dip. US has a chronically lazy segment of population and unless all free money sources dry out, you can not expect these lazy mofo's to put in a hard day's work.UB I might be okay in already socialist economies, until they can not tax actually working people any more. By that time, if robots are doing all the work, nobody will want to work. If I work and get the same money as the UBI recipient, why should I bust my ass ? When we reach the singularity, we can discuss UBI again, but until than it is a losing bet for the working population. Because there always will be some smartass who thinks he/she can game the system.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
Poor people use drugs less than rich people.
People that currently work to afford drug and alcohol addictions would now have no need to work, so society as a whole gains a dependent class at the expense of those who want to produce.
I'd rather have drunks and druggies as a dependent class than having them working as truck drivers or operating heavy machinery to afford their drugs and/or alcohol.
And do they find any evidence that people will work the same or more?
There are many experiences that money is an incentive to work, so the burden of the proof is in there are side.
I have no found evidence against my hypotheses is not science.
The thing is, people whop work just to get money to fund an addiction are most likely working jobs that are going to be gone anyway in the next couople of decades.
This shows a very naive world perspective. Drug addicts aren't all cracked-out fast food junkies like you see on COPS. There are many people with professional jobs that are drug addicts.
You're totally ignoring the inflation that would happen when people suddenly have this "extra" money.
Maybe the reason people kept working is because, with an inflation rate rising from 10% to 40% when the measure was introduced, the allowance would soon amount to no money at all.
But want people to believe it.
OK, you may decide to work less. Go ahead. Don't care. It doesn't mean that people will work less under a UBI, only you would.
Tell me, if you got the paycheck of the Texaco CEO for one year, would you never work again? Why did Rex Tillerson work there for years, then?
To all the people bitching about these hypothetical lazy people would you personally stop working if you had a guaranteed income? Will it kill you if a small percentage of the population takes advantage of it and doesn't work? Here's a clue most of the population doesn't work for an income already - the young, the retired, stay at home mothers, those unemployed, those in jail (in the USA those in jail make up a non-trivial part of the population). So of those people who are working how many of them will stop working? Of those who stop how many will try and improve their skills? And of those who aren't working how many will now start to work because they won't be penalized for earning money?
I can see arguing against UBI based on the cost but most of the arguments here are based on envy and pettiness.
Disclaimer: I have very good income already. UBI would be irrelevant to my income while the taxes for it would likely sting a bit.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No insult intended, but would you agree that your comment was "insightful"?
What I was looking for (after "funny" of course) was insightful analysis or discussion. Certainly didn't find any in the comments so moderated, and none of my other keywords found anything either...
My ekronomic (time uber money) analysis breaks things into three categories. Essential working time is quite small in advanced societies, so most of the working time goes into the other categories: investment and recreation. The guaranteed income essentially keeps the economy working by sustaining demand, though if you want your society to become more competitive in the future, you want to incentivize investment spending over recreation. However, even the recreation spending contributes to the economy.
This is just the elevator version. Details available upon polite request. On Slashdot? Polite? ROFLMAO.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You mean like when a bunch of young men get drafted to go shoot at the Communists?
Then why is there a positive correlation between alcoholism and unemployment?
Sure, I never claimed they're all working low-income jobs.
But the thing is that doesn't matter in the context of the point I was responding to: the investment bankers making millions and snorting coke off the boobs of strippers are not going to suddenly switch to a life on basic income of a few hundred if such is made available to them because they've grown accustomed to a level of income that's far above anything that an UBI would offer-
The people OP was talking about,. people who'd in his opinion stop working altogether if UBI came about have to by necessity be people who's level of income would not drastically change if they seized working, so we're talking about low-income workers in this case and hence jobs that are about to disappear in the near future in any case. That's the reason for my wording, and I stand by it, even though you're entirely correct that addiction affects all income-classes
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Because it's just a subsidy on income. All it would do is raise prices. Because hey - people can afford things because they have a UBI.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Oh yes, the old Not Real Socialism (TM) argument! So you're saying it's not socialism even though the state STOLE the means of production from private owners (namely oil production capital), what other definition of socialism is there? I can see arguing UBI isn't socialism (it is), but Venezuela is 100% without a doubt socialist, you have to be horribly disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I'm sure when times were good you bragged about how great socialism was in Venezuela. No, once again you have a socialist state seizing production, over consuming and failing to invest in maintaining their stolen capital, only to have their production capacity eventually collapse and everyone starves. How many more times does this need to happen, and how many more people need to die before people understand socialism will never, ever work? Your selfish desire for other people's stuff has already killed many millions of people, how many more need to suffer before we can all accept socialism is horrible? These aren't flukes, this outcome was predicted by economists in the 19th century, long before socialism was ever tried, and it should be fucking obvious to anyone with even the most basic understanding of econ and capital. And if you think this was just the result of mismanagement, I suggest you read up on the price system and why centralized control ALWAYS fails. Just like fascism, socialism is a garbage populist ideology that might sound good on paper to uneducated idiots, but winds up causing endless death and destruction in practice.
and that they were likely enrolling in school with the added income
That single line torpedoes their entire "study". To rephrase the article summary in more honest words: "we found that people did work less, but we're just going to assume that they're going to school instead".
You can prove anything you want when you're willing to hand-wave away any data you don't like.
Because your drinking may cause you to lose your shitty job, or the stress/boredom of not being able to move forward socially or accomplish goals can drive you to drinking. Hence, why alcoholism and opioid addiction are often found in towns where industry has died.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
And you know what the Tories and other good and faithful followers of our divinely-appointed King called those people back then? LEFTISTS!
Actually, no. The Left/Right thing came about as a result of the French Revolution more than 10 years afterwards. Literally, your political leanings determined whether you sat on the left side of the French legislative chamber or the right side. The term "Right" has nothing to do with being right, or of Rights.
The USA was founded in a time when every civilized country had, By Grace of God, a King. They were to the conservatives of the day what Communists were to the Captains of Industry in the 20th Century.
Please understand finally that extremism wants to take your liberties. Left or right doesn't really matter here, any extremist ideology puts the ideology over your personal freedoms.
Thank you. Glad to see someone gets it.
People like to say that the whole R/D thing is just like sports, where you cheer your own team and boo the other one.
But in sports, you're not rooting for the complete, total, and eternal annihilation of the other team. You play the game, you win or lose, no hard feelings (well, not many) and you come back again for a rematch. And again next season. The team is important, but the game is everything.
Ideology is a game for idiots. And far too many people are obsessive players.
is lower wages and benefits as companies try to make it part of the worker's normal compensation. They are clever that way.
E Proelio Veritas.
And liberals then would be called libertarians today. Both modern liberals and conservatives are more like the conservative feudalists of them time, they only differ in the priorities they want their king to have. Steal everyone's money for welfare vs steal everyone's money for bombs, ban speaking badly about brown people vs ban speaking badly about the country, etc
You might be right about extremism, except perhaps the status quo is extremist.
So if you use 2 Trillion as your favorite number taxes have to only increase every single tax or source of revenue by 52% consider where the government gets its money http://www.pgpf.org/finding-solutions/understanding-the-budget/revenue and think what that would really mean. Federal taxation is a economies of scale issue. Rich people or corporations literally do not have the money to cover our bills. It has to hit the masses of people. In 2009 if you taxed everyone with over $1mil in AGI made a total of 727 billion. If you taxed them at 100% you would be able to pay for your current government (2009 numbers to match data, but is lower by a lot) + 2tril UBI for 1.8 Months. If you seized and sold off all of the stock for every company in the SP500 you would get $20 trillion, so that's great the corporations must have some money. But that would pay for your budget for 4 years, but it's not realistic. Let's look at their income, the SP500 has a P/E ratio of 25.70 currently, that's 25.70x what they earn so about 800 billion. Taxing them at 100% gets you two more months. Where is the rest going to come from?
How does UBI account for inflation? I would imagine that the value of money, and its purchasing power, decrease under UBI.
I suppose the bankrupt govt will supply all the UBI funds. I know, let's borrow it from China.
Maybe they are coping with something similar to but not exactly equal to a shitty job?
Irony much?
It doesn't torpedo everything. It begs a study into THAT question. Standard method in science is to stay narrow, not alter protocol midway through investigation or research.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
UBI won't work, any more than any other communist utopian scheme works. Reason: Simple! Human nature!
The above is (one of many of) yours, s.petry: Clear, simple and wrong.
Then why is there a positive correlation between alcoholism and unemployment?
People who are prone to alcoholism tend to have trouble holding down a steady job.
Central Europe is a Country and Government now? Or perhaps you wish to give a more specific example which you believe is Utopian and capable of giving every member of the country UBI. Caution: There are massive problems in every European Country currently, and none of them could afford to give everyone a UBI including Germany who is making a fortune from loan payments from the rest of Europe.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
We found NO evidence...
BUT...
We found evidence (that people in their twenties worked less).
Editor fail again. Or click bait.
I have a basic income. 1) it is nice 2) I still work. Only part time, but cause of my pre-existing condition, not because of "laziness". If I had to work full time, I would certainly try, but fail. So ultimately, this keeps me off the dole.
First flaw: Ignoring how money gets into the system to pay out a UBI for 330 Million people. Print more like the Weimark Republic which ends up with collapse due to inflation (takes more than the current GDP of the USA to pay a basic living wage to the populace) or tax the producers. The latter already happens at a staggeringly high rate and we can't pay our current bills.
The idea of UBI has been around for at least 70 years and nobody has seen any working models. You already hinted at hating reality, but numerous countries in Central and South America have started out with that ideal and quickly turned into tyrannical authoritarian regimes. You need guns to take from those that have and give to the poor.
Please save your Finland is great arguments. I work with people who worked very hard to leave Finland, which is basically a caste system. There is no social or economic mobility in Finland. Finland in theory should be much easier to control since it's population is less than many cities in the USA. Where is Finland's great UBI program? If you can't and won't do it, why should we?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Many people work two or even three jobs these days to pay the bills, including mortgage/rent. With a universal basic income, they might cut back to a single 40-hour/week job. The real issue is more about the stagnant wages and increasing cost of living here in the USA. Yes, wages are going up for SOME people, but for many, the cost of living is going up faster than their income. Employers limiting employees to 24-28 hours per week just so they are not required to offer health insurance or other benefits is another issue, but again, it comes down to most people WISHING they could survive by working 40 hours per week.
I will note that the amount of vacation and sick time offered here in the USA is also very low compared to Europe. Two weeks of vacation per year, and 5 days of sick time per year is the standard here in the USA, and many people don't even get that, because employers are limiting people to part-time status that does not offer sick/vacation time.
Standard method in science is to stay narrow, not alter protocol midway through investigation or research.
But that's exactly what this conclusion does. The question the study was looking into was "do people work less when given a universal basic income". They looked at the data, and saw that the answer was "yes". Instead of saying "yes, UBI does decrease how much people work" they said "no it doesn't, but, like, it does in this one group over here, but, um, we're going to assume that's because they're going to school".
It begs a study into THAT question
Yes, absolutely, that should be looked into. But whether or not a followup study occurs doesn't change the fact that this study showed that UBI does in fact lead to people working less on average. Isolating one specific group in order to turn a "yes" into a "no" is inherently dishonest.
But wait.... these are often "never worked households", and 1 in 100 in the UK is a member of this amazing club
So wait... only 1%? That's fantastic! Over here in the US, we have a long-term (really more like 'recurring for life') prison population that's a multiple of that. And btw, each prisoner costs our gov't as much, but likely more, than each of your 'never-workers'.
I'm not saying it's not a problem. Just saying that it's a problem I'd much rather have instead of the ones we do.
That doesn't seem supportable. Many towns with factory work have alcohol and opioid abuse problems; and many employers allow their employees to just not come to work high. I've known people who were sent home for shitting their pants while high on heroin.
Much of the time, the people with the lowest incomes or the greatest difficulty sustaining employment end up with substance abuse problems. Conversely, people with high addiction potential--those with alleles encoding delta-FosB more-readily in rewards responses--tend to not get their addictions under control until they stabilize their employment and personal lives, even when their employment is the same shitty factory job as habitual abusers.
The brain tends to follow the lowest-energy actions, such that the reflexive impulses formed in the midbrain occur without interruption. To override this, one must formulate new intent in the prefrontal cortex, then apply pressure via the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Once the dlPFX is exhausted (ATP, neurotransmitter stores), self-control becomes difficult, and stress becomes a motivator.
Behavioral trends in population strongly suggest poverty is more-stressful than routine shitty employment. You suggest only a parallel construction.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
UBI won't work, any more than any other communist utopian scheme works. Reason: Simple! Human nature!
A UBI can't provide a utiopian society because it can only fund from productive output. Income represents production, and you can only fund a UBI by a portion of income. If you just print new money, for example, then that money isn't backed by anything--it doesn't represent anything produced and sold, so it can't buy anything. Thus you only get inflation.
I designed a Universal Social Security years ago. It only works if humans are universally determined to economize--to maximize the ends derived from their means. That is to say: it only works if people are prone to do the least work for the most profit.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It seems clear to me that if you give everyone the same amount of free money, the economy will simply adjust by making everything more expensive, until the net benefit gained by the people from the free money becomes zero.
First flaw: Ignoring how money gets into the system to pay out a UBI for 330 Million people. Print more like the Weimark Republic which ends up with collapse due to inflation (takes more than the current GDP of the USA to pay a basic living wage to the populace) or tax the producers
Income represents production. You make, you sell, people buy, that's income. Businesses deduct wages and supply from income, so eventually income represents profits plus wages. That means income represents everything produced and sold.
Printing money won't work. You have to use money as an abstraction to redistribute wealth--that is, products and services. Wealth only exists if it's produced, so you have to redistribute existing money. That's why we have taxes instead of just a printing press to make new dollars for every Government expense.
The latter already happens at a staggeringly high rate
The United States can deploy a Universal Social Security at a trillion dollars less burden on the taxpayer. That counts pay-outs in excess of taxes taken as "taxpayer burden". If you pay $20,000 in taxes and, under the USS, pay a total of $15,000 including the benefit (i.e. removing the money you receive from the taxes you pay), that's $5,000 less of burden. If you pay $500 in taxes and you end up with $7,000 from the Government, someone had to pony up that $6,500 difference--you put down the first $500 and we just gave it back.
No need to raise anyone's taxes.
The idea of UBI has been around for at least 70 years and nobody has seen any working models
Technical progress. The cost to produce things constantly goes down by way of reducing the total labor involved in that production. That means more stuff is produced per person each year--more-correctly, more stuff is produced per labor-hour worked.
Welfare isn't even possible if it requires 5% of our income and everyone is 2.5% of their income away from starving. Find a way to make more food with less labor and now everyone's 7% away from starving and you can (technically) take the extra.
The Universal Social Security I designed would have utterly crushed the United States in 1950. The income span would theoretically be $40k-$70k/year--nobody would be any richer than $70k. As if that wouldn't collapse the economy easily enough, you'd have to tax the rich at rates above 135% of their income if you used a stable taxation model. That's because a stable model uses a progressive-tax general fund and a flat-tax Social Security financing source, and the highest tax bracket would have still been over 90% while the USS tax in 1950 would have been over 40%.
In 2013, the USS tax needs to be 17%; it replaces 55% of the income taxes; and we can do it without increasing taxes on any income class.
numerous countries in Central and South America have started out with that ideal and quickly turned into tyrannical authoritarian regimes
There are a lot of bad UBI systems and, as stated above, you need to be a highly-developed economy in an absolute sense. Your level-of-technology has to be such that production of the things a UBI buys reflects a sufficiently-small proportion of your economy or you're proposing Marxism instead of cheap welfare.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I'll turn my UBI into a proper fortune by investing it while sitting outside in my dirthole of an office called a mine digging minerals.
Won't change how much I'm working right now one bit, it'll just make my operations much more effective and efficient and productive. Can't really automate mining as while the tech exists, nobody knows what's 'essential' for a basic miner, as there are so many varying mine positions that making a machine to handle them all would make it so damned large as to be useless for anything excepting mass quarry operations where they don't give a shit about gangue.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Case in point Alaska already has UBI to a limited extent, in that everyone gets 1000$ or whatever just for existing in Alaska, and that is only from oil, nothing else (and not even equal to values, just a taste).
Most of this "poor people are lazy" is pure projection. Look at the kind of people who put this meme. out there They're the type that thinks golfing is hard work and won't get out of bed for less than $1000 per hour. And their useful idiots that repeat it are just as lazy; their indolence just hasn't "earned" them the ability to appropriate another's labor yet.
Your statement is absolutely false, and has no basis in reality. Money does not "fix" addiction, and proof is simply looking at the long list of addicts who are/were extremely wealthy. How about Jimi Hendrix, Bon Scott, John Bonham, Kurt Cobain, or Whitney Houston? Don't like musicians, how about politicians like Rob Fort, Senator Crapo, or Marion Barry? Drugs are not good enough? How about alcohol like Ted Kennedy? How about Porn/Sex like Anthony Weiner? You should be able to do your own research from here, and find that money certainly does not fix addiction.
Thank goodness you are not a psychologist!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
We have an entire political MOVEMENT here in the US that has done it's level best to ignore scientific facts, even when the evidence is OVERWHELMING! (Case in point, climate change and the recent decision to pull out of the Paris Accords).
We have the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development saying "Poverty is a state of mind"! We have others saying it's "God's will", and that poor people should pray their way out of poverty. We have the entire Republican Party fighting a $15 minimum wage! We have them fighting to eliminate the Estate Tax, which gives the richest family in America (the Waltons) a FIFTY FOUR BILLION DOLLAR TAX CUT, while at the same time CUTTING programs for the most vulnerable among us!
Then on the OTHER side of the aisle, we have Nancy Pelosi saying "Medicare for all will NEVER happen"! We have 2/3rds of the Democrats being paid off in one way or another by the Pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, and the medical devices companies. Most of the rest take money from telecom corporations, media companies, the MPAA & RIAA, and even oil companies!
Until Americans can come to grips with the fact that BOTH PARTIES are fighting for the benefit of the rich at the expense of the poor, we will continue to see this!
WAKE UP AND TAKE ACTION PEOPLE! GET INVOLVED!
Oh yeah, I'm going to work LESS because the government GIVES me $16,000/year. NOT! I have ambitions and dreams you know. Hey, the USA, before it was the USA, tried all that socialist crap and it FAILED! They tried collectivism. Everyone produced, and it was shared with the village. They almost starved to death because some people were nothing more than the early version of freeloaders/bums/hobos. When they divided up the land, and allowed each person or family to work as they saw fit, (CAPITALISM), the colonies took off. The first Thanksgiving was because the Indians (sorry, not politically correct) shared their meat and other items with the colonists, so they didn't starve.
Are you kidding me? Is this from the same liberal group that swore there'd be no snow by 2015? Or that coastlines would be swamped by 2017?
Liberals continue to talk about how they are all science, but all their 'studies' are based on the ANSWER THEY WANT and fit the facts to it. That's not scientific, that's idiotic.
Personally, we should crucify them all and be done with it.
Pax Vobiscum
Yet somehow, this is socialism's fault instead of good old fashioned greedy latino dictators. This same thing can happen here in the capitalist America
Socialism fails for the same reason Communism fails. In fact, it's the same shortcoming with the Republic described by Socrates in Plato's work by the same name. The systems are nearly identical in implementation, but differ in "How" the system is implemented. You hint at it with your comments on Chavez and Maduro, which is that the systems only work if the leaders are purely altruistic. As seen in every Government across the globe through history, there are extremely few such people and they don't live forever. Most of the time they are not allowed near Government, and get killed by the same. They tend to be recognized more after they are killed than during their lifetime.
Your latter part is true, however, the US has layers of protections built into the system. The founders were not a bunch of yokels without worldly knowledge, they were hundreds of great minds who studied and planned knowing that Governments fail when they obtain too much power. People have been working very hard to tear those protections down, but in terms of Government longevity the US has done pretty well. There is currently a massive push for another Article 5 motion which could hopefully put those protections back up piece by piece.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This is a critical question.
If UBI is only for adults, then having children reduces available funds per person in that family. Likely this is the optimum choice, as it means that UBI can scale up to any degree without directly incentivizing increasing the number of offspring.
If UBI is per human, then having children increases UBI benefits, and creates the same type of "have-kids" incentive for any family that can drive the cost of raising the kids down far enough that it falls under whatever UBI is.
What happens with the latter circumstance is that the amount of UBI becomes a lot more critical; if it's more than needed to raise a kid, then having kids equates to earning more money, so there has to be a practical ceiling on UBI or we'll just create more problems. That ceiling means that the degree to which UBI can benefit citizens is capped. Inasmuch as automation is very likely to remove the opportunity to work for many, that's a serious concern.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ah, the One True Scotsman, or should i say Socialist, Fallacy never fails to come up when Socialism fails yet again. Socialism does not work. Never has. Never will. Venezuela is the latest example.
My primary goal at the moment is to become financially independent, meaning I have enough money invested that I can live off of my gains.
At that point I most certainly would take time off from work. I wouldn't stop working altogether, but I'd work on things like martial arts, playing musical instruments, automotive work, micro controllers, etc. I definitely wouldn't be putting in a regular 9-5 and meeting deadlines for other people.
I'd go work out in the morning, come back and have lunch and then work on whatever I felt like for the afternoon. I'd probably attend more conferences, give lectures/tutorials and write more software. Basically get back to some of the things I used to do (or wanted to do) as a child when I had all of the time in the world, but no money. Now it's the opposite situation, plenty of money but my time is spent working on other peoples' problems.
The key flaw in your post is that you claim that this works without any evidence positive and countless examples to the negative. The failed stated mentioned all started out as "all of the people will prosper and be wealthy" regimes who claimed to be able to provide the promise if only "they" were given control and people all gave up their liberties. Not a single one has delivered, and the overwhelming majority of those places have turned into violent shitholes where if the Government doesn't kill you Gangs and Ganglords will.
The moral of every Utopia story is that they DO NOT WORK! Human Nature prevents them from working! Why morons continue to latch onto the latest scheme is quite baffling. Do you also fall for the Nigerian Prince scam repeatedly, or is it only Utopia that stumps your intellect?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
People like me would use the money to work harder, plenty of people would use the money to avoid work if possible.
But I bet it would balance out. People have this weird tendency to average out some way or another.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
UBIs don't work in free market economies over the long term. Consider housing: You and everyone else sets the price of housing based on what you are willing to pay to live there. If you have an income of $100 and you are only willing to spend 20% on housing, you will have a difficult time finding housing if everyone else is willing to spend $21. Now let's say the Government gives everyone a UBI of $10. "Yea," you think. "Now I can afford that $21 home." But here is the trap. Everyone now gets that extra $10. Everyone's base level for affording a hope goes up a little, and the housing market adapts to the new income level. Before you know it, that $21 home is now priced $22, because that's what the new market will allow. So, ultimately, a UBI doesn't help anyone. (Minimum wage is slightly better if only that it prevents people for having to work for nothing. (Except interns.))
Back when Venezuela was flush with cash and Chavez was offering health care to poor Americans, Venezuela was a swell example of socialism. Guess what. It still is a swell example of socialism.
Wouldn't UBI either cause inflation or cause wages to drop?
All of you wealthy folks who work in California can start paying increased federal taxes to pay me a UBI.
Also, I feel like I'm a trans-black trans-woman trans-badger today, so you have to pay extra to pay for me.
not finding evidence is not evidence.
e.g. I have found no evidence that sunglasses cause booty cancer. Therefore, sunglasses must prevent booty cancer!
.. because there are too many people with low empathy who are currently in charge. They cannot stomach giving hand outs to poor and especially to anyone not white. Their arguments will always go back to the lazy poor couch sitter. But this is a straw man. It doesnt matter if some people do this. By giving them money, they are locked into the economy. Money doesnt "disappear" or can be "wasted". Their entire checks will be spent which will directly contribute to consumer confidence, which is the most important barometer for the economy.
Others will use the check to continue in school, or will be encouraged to work hard because now they can start to really afford their dreams, or work less to help raise their family, or work in lower paying jobs such as basic science, teaching, charity, etc, that benefit us all.
It just doesnt matter that some will take the money and do nothing. That money will quickly be spent at Walmart and Amazon and get recycled back into the system. Increasing the velocity of money is a good thing for the economy.
I am probably part of the 1%, I pay well into six figures in taxes. Please republicans stop trying to give me tax breaks. Tax me more, and give the rest to the less well off to spend. I dont make money by cutting my taxes, I make money when warehouses are busy and buy more of my products. When you cut social programs you cut at the bottom of the tree, the consumer spending that supports the general economy. The economy is not a zero sum game, the better off people are, the better the economy is, and the rich can earn even more money than before.
You dont understand what UBI is. UBI is not promising prosperty for all, it is promising the basics (literally the "B" in the acronym). People have to give up all their liberties under UBI? You're just making up undesirable atributes for UBI now. What liberties would be lost under a policy of UBI?
You also decided to completely ignore my point that the failed states you mention used COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS and then you just repeated yourself. UBI is the same as these failed state communist policies because they both try to help people? Are apples the same as oranges because they're both food? What about social security, public education, public roads or any one of hundreds of other policies that exist to help people that exist in every successfull country in the world?
There are no negative examples for UBI because there are literally no examples of UBI in any form of meaningfull practice.
Your only valid point is that there are no positive examples of UBI which certainly does not mean it's doomed to failure as it is an untested idea. It only means it is not garunteed to succeed which I would certainly agree with.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
They obviously didn't poll me. I would absolutely work less under a UBI, if decent enough. Damn, I am sick of the stress and pressure of working my fingers to the bone to pay for myself and my family's expenses, I would welcome sweet relief in a heartbeat. I long to live a life of moving from one meaningless hedonistic pleasure to the next. Mod me down for being an asshole, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.
UBI under our current economic systems are a form of theft, but if technological progress allows us to create a post-scarcity society, there is no reason we should continue to toil if large-scale automation etc. can ease our burden.
Both poverty and shitty employment are stressful, and stress increases the risk of addiction. In fact, part of what often defines "shitty jobs" is insufficient income for real social mobility.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I used to think this way, but no more. I observed that years ago one of my clients that employed hundreds of people to do manufacturing work. When EIC (earned income credit) was instituted for many of their employees they observed that if these employees got a large lump sum payment at the end of the year, they wouldn't show up for work until the money ran out. The culture was "if I have money, why work". Perhaps in other countries this culture doesn't exist, but I can tell you that here in the US it does. The company had to institute a company policy to ONLY pay the EIC payments weekly (no year end lump sum was available) so that the payments were so small that the employees wouldn't stay away from work (they still got the same total EIC payments). You would have thought that the employees would have used the lump sum payment to save, invest, pay off bills, but no they saw it as an opportunity to do nothing. Frankly I was shocked by this behavior, but it was real and covered a large enough sample size for me to know that it was widespread. Maybe someday we will all be like characters on Star Trek that work to make themselves the best that they can be, but large portions of our society are very far from that ideal today.
in sports, you're not rooting for the complete, total, and eternal annihilation of the other team.
You've clearly never been to an English soccer match!
Looking at the money makes the assumption that money equals the amount of stuff you get. But, for a fixed amount of stuff produced in the economy, that will not happen. Instead, if you inject more money, there will be inflation. Rather, you need to look at how the pie is divided. The question then is whether the pie is divided any differently when you give everyone a fixed income in addition to what they get now. A good argument can be made that the pie is divided based on market power, so things will just readjust to how they were before. Or, alternately, if the economy is not running at full capacity, you can ask whether you will increase the size of the pie. That is equivalent to the Fed lowering interest rates.
Then, stability of financial position--a lower probability of losing your livelihood, becoming homeless, and starving in the streets--would reduce stress, thus reducing the risk of addiction. Your shitty, low-income job would still be shitty, and you would only be able to go home to a greater guarantee of stability and fewer worries about where your next meal is coming from.
That seems like an improvement. It's not a panacea--the problem isn't going to go away entirely, and nothing's going to do that--only an operational improvement in efficiency.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
That really hasn't been an issue since the 1990's. Most of what one would consider welfare programs now are time limited, welfare to work programs. The exceptions tend to involve benefits for dependent children.
The last time general price controls were in effect was during the Nixon administration. They were as ineffectual as you'd think.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yup. You want more money than the UBI, you find a job or start a business or something.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sign me up!
...paid her under the table then. Everyone would win: your sister had an employee, the worker got extra money and only paid $300 rent.
Your sister is a garbage human.
Not UBI, but close to it, is what's going on in Austria. It probably has the best social security system in existence right now.
Germany's is actually way worse.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
English soccer is a game on the field and a war on the stands.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't know where you get the idea that people all want to leave Cuba or no people want to enter Cuba. But Cuba is really the worst possible example you could have picked.
...that I NEEDED that job, and I got fired over our conversation that day? Harsh, man.
You are correct that job satisfaction is not tied to income, but neither is job satisfaction nor income is tied to addiction. Why are so many musicians and actors, with so much wealth and free time also addicts? They could surely afford to move to a more fulfilling job if they wanted, and fill time in ways other than drugs,l alcohol, and sex addiction? Doesn't fit the narrative does it?
That all said, you still ignore the basic concern I mentioned which is that giving people money for doing nothing harms those conditions. Again, use the extremely wealthy with too much time on their hands as the example. Enabling people does not help society, it harms it. Now you need more $$ from the producers to treat all the addiction, treat all the depression, pay the rent when money gets spent on drugs instead of housing, etc..
In other words, the current welfare system is not replaced at all by UBI. UBI makes the situation worse!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And you don't understand that the current welfare system would not be replaced by UBI. The only way it could be, is if the Government controlled 100% of the economy and production. Give everyone 1,000.00 a month and what happens to rent? What happens to food cost? What happens to utilities? There is this thing called inflation which would adjust itself to the extra money floating around for "free".
Considering that people needing assistance now are no better off with more cash if it's worse less, you are proposing a completely unworkable system based on numerous false premises. Such ass "humans are all altruistic and infallible so will do what you want with the cash.
Answer this simple question: A person now who is in poverty with dependent children spends their UBI on lottery tickets instead of rent and food. Do you tell them to piss off and let them and their dependents live on the street and beg for food, or do you pick up the tab for housing and food in addition to UBI? You and I both know the answer to the question.
While you fumble around with that one big fat lie, consider that the rest of UBI theory has the same exact problems. People are not altruistic and infallible. The current system is abused regulary. Extending hand outs to everyone does not change that fact, and nothing gets better. Inflation and taxes for producers become much worse, to the point of being unworkable.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Inflation hell, what about the source of this magic money? Where does it appear from?
You still have not told anybody who has asked where the money is going to come from.
What liberties would be lost under a policy of UBI?
All liberties. Dependents don't have liberties by definition. It is a contradiction in terms to say that a dependent can have liberty from their guardian.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Personally I think a lot of people might be more focused on long term goals like finishing their education, building new inventions and such if they aren't worried about basic food and housing. It's a great goal for society to work towards, even if it's not practical now.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Ah, you're wanting to argue semantics and theory instead of the real world. In other words, you believe you have inalienable rights granted by "something" greater than any of us. This is not observably true. You have the right to the thing you want to do if and only if the controlling power let you do that. People are executed routinely legally or not daily around the world. Those dead people certainly are enjoying that right to life that whatever it was said they had aren't they? You get to have the rights, the property, and the way of life that you want only by fighting for it. To use a conservative example of this, we have the Four Box method of democracy here: The Soap Box, The Ballot Box, The Jury Box, and The Ammo Box. Use in that order. But you keep telling that robber holding a gun at you that he can't shoot you cause God gave you a "right" to exist.
I was not claiming that a human is an actual dog. Guilty dogs barking is a colloquialism. That is probably one of the weirdest responses I've gotten on this unless I am misunderstanding you. As far as rights, I am solidly in the camp that can argue theoretically we have lots of inalienable rights, but know that in reality you get the rights and property that you can defend including by deadly force if necessary.
You replaced all of my uses of Maduro with Venezuela. I said Maduro was not a socialist. It is quite clear that he is not, and is stripping away many of the things that make Venezuela socialist. He wants to be another dictator for life like Castro. Also seizing the means of production is not socialist, that's communist, again like Castro. And fascism...ugh you had to throw in that buzzword right? You don't know what it means. Don't play holier-than-thou either. I'm American so I know exactly what we do to the world. I've been to war. I've travelled to rich countries and shit-poor countries (Djibouti is terrible).
"Your selfish desire for other people's stuff has already killed many millions of people, how many more need to suffer before we can all accept socialism is horrible?"
Socialism, again, has nothing to do with it. WAR is horrible. I've been on the battlefield. I've been in the combat ERs. I've pulled people from crashed choppers. You want to shit on socialism, but use examples of communism, and fully ignore the war that keeps America spending stupid amounts of money on the military and its subcontractors. The only reason and way you can defend this honestly is to say that YOU are ok with America taking other people's stuff no matter the lives lost as long as they don't take it from you. That is what we do here. I know. I am part of the machine.
From Rationalwiki:
The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defines a group such that every groupmember possess some quality. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". This can occur in two ways:
1.During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group.[2][3]
2.Before argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group.[4]
Please point out where I violated either of those conditions. That's what you amateur logical fallacy guys always forget. They are only fallacies when they are FASLE. Ya know, it's right there in the name...
I know you're being sarcastic, but it *is* a recipe for success, if it allows the currently-unproductive to be more-productive in the future.
You can't deny that there are at least some contexts where it works. Just look at all those those hideously unproductive human babies...
In that case, everybody who is not a debt-free landowner has no liberties, because everyone who rents or owes money (on necessities at least) is dependent on whoever they're having to borrow from. Someone who doesn't own their own land is not free to exist without strings anywhere; everywhere he goes, he is on someone else's land, dependent on them (or if not them, someone else, but still always someone) consenting to him existing there at all. Sure he's free to leave... and walk onto someone else's land, and be dependent on them instead. Choice of masters is not freedom.
Poverty is dependency which by your own claim is a lack of liberty, so if so many people are stuck in unfree poverty anyway, isn't it a step up for them to be still nominally unfree but at least materially safe while they're at it?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
You're talking absurdities and lies.
"And you don't understand that the current welfare system would not be replaced by UBI."
If UBI comes from the federal level then they could certainly end all current federal welfare. What the hell would be stopping them, they're the ones who make the rules. After that, why would it matter what the states did?
"The only way it could be, is if the Government controlled 100% of the economy and production. "
Why on earth would the government need %100 control of the economy? How the hell does getting rid of the current welfare system involve government control of the economy? They are completely unrelated things.
"Give everyone 1,000.00 a month and what happens to rent?"
I already explained to you TWICE now that UBI is for basic needs. 1,000,000 per person could only happen in some far off future with levels of productivity that make us look like cavemen.
"Considering that people needing assistance now are no better off with more cash if it's worse less, you are proposing a completely unworkable system based on numerous false premises. Such ass "humans are all altruistic and infallible so will do what you want with the cash."
Why on earth is my premise based on people are altruistic and infallible. Quite the opposite in fact. UBI is meant for a shrinking labor market due to automation and a society that is NOT altruistic and infallible. If it were, UBI wouldnt be needed.
"Answer this simple question: A person now who is in poverty with dependent children spends their UBI on lottery tickets instead of rent and food. Do you tell them to piss off and let them and their dependents live on the street and beg for food, or do you pick up the tab for housing and food in addition to UBI? You and I both know the answer to the question."
I do but it's clear you don't. We do the same thing we did prior to the great depression. Let them go to a nearby church or food bank which currently operate largely without federal government funds.
You really are just making up false adjectives and claims. Get back to me when you can back something up.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Maybe I didn't tell anyone that because that wasn't the subject of the conversation Highdude.
But since you now ask, the idea is that it would be funded by a combination of the elimination of most social programs (for instance UBI and social security are redundant) and then higher taxes on the affluent who will be earning ever more money in the highly automated future UBI is meant for.
The money is there.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
So you own the business you work for and dont depend on anything like roads, internet infrastructure, or any other outside influences (basically you operate in a vacuum?)? I ask because if otherwise you're a dependent. The person who signs your paycheck is no different from the government in a context like this and if you're the one who signs your paycheck you are certainly beholden to various other business' and the government.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Yes, trading work for money and/or cooperation makes you a dependent.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Based on a lot of comments, I have come to the conclusion that UBI could probably work fine... in most countries. Just probably not in the USA.
I sometimes pick up trash when I'm hiking in nature.
Just because it looks nicer afterwards.
The hardest part is getting over the hatred of the people who littered in the first place.
I'll work less.
Damn Persians
Why give cash to some when you can give necessities to everyone whether they need it or not. So what is necessary? And what is prohibited? And what is required of the recipient?
Nobody would like my answers but the questions are useful.
They're wrong. They invalidated their own research by disregarding the results they specifically said:
"The researchers did find that young people -- specifically people in their twenties -- worked less, but noted that Iran never had a high level of employment among young people"
BR> Taking from the productive and giving to the non-productive and did not earn it, is STEALING, and to a lesser extent, slavery, no matter what "moral face" you paint onto it.
To lay claim to the fruits of a person's labor and life/time is the exact definition of slavery. You're claiming ownership of THEM and their labor, which equates to their time, which equates to the product of their entire being... their life, which everyone only has a finite amount of. This kind of fascist utopian bullshit makes me SICK.
UBI = Slavery on a mass scale by the government/powerful. PERIOD.
... unless you wish to see massive poverty, stagnation of social mobility and the creation of a permanent underclass of people similar to the situation European economies saw in the 1800s in the wake of the industrial revolution.
Yeah man. I remember those days and it was not pretty. We definitely don't want that again.
I tend to rant.
The advanced European economies have been working as de facto socialist states for the better part of half a century
No they haven't. Socialism, by definition, means the workers control the means of production. That's not the case in any advanced European economy. Strange how people who claim to have a better education keep failing to understand the basic meaning of words.
The successful EU nations have reasonably effective and well run welfare systems. This does not make them socialist: there are still billionaires and banks, and they control the capital for many businesses.
EU policy comes with high costs as well, such as long term problems with economic growth, an inability to compete in many fields (those pesky VAT taxes hit every step in a complex logistics chain), high business overhead (for many reasons, such as the need to navigate the maze of exceptions for VAT taxes in many countries) and problems with black market participation and household debt (those pesky high sales taxes).
Proof?
Proof?
I don't need your stinkin' proof, I have my own proof and facts. Every poor person is lazy, and, if you give them free money, they'll be even lazier.
My (alternative) facts confirm my truly objective bias.
The report found no evidence for the idea that people will work less under a universal income
Note that this was in Iran where they behead people for breathing.
Come to the projects. It will make a mockery of this report.
Here's the thing, Human nature is that people will do as little as they have to for whatever they can get. The reason they wok more and harder is so they can get more and more.
If you can work 4 hours or 8 hours for the same pay then you will do the least.
If you have to take 800 steps vs. 400 steps to get to the same desired location-you will take the path to least resistance or 400 steps.
I see people stand out with signs by the road "Will Work For Food" so I stop and offer a good hourly age for some things I need done - All Cash. They tell me no thanks they rather stand there and get paid for holding the sign.
So to simply give people money for existing with no incentive to actually produce, perform, and work for that money then they will do the bare minimum.
They will sit there and collect a check for hanging out at the bar, or get paid while they play Call of Duty, or paid while they browse facebook and the internet.
WHich is another fine example. An employee is very content to have a boss pay their wage while they browse the internet. The only reason they don't is for threat of termination and therefor income.
Trust me and open your eyes-I have seen perfectly hard workers become slackards from receiving the free ride.
With UBI people will work for self-actualization in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
Instead, as jobs are eliminated forever and the jobs to available workforce ratio gets larger, the government will implement a much more expensive system of rounding up the permanently unemployable, dispatching them, then disposing of their dead husks.
BECAUSE, paying people who cannot work does not make rich people more money. This plan will reduce the tax burden on the wealthy, while giving them ample opportunity to come up with profitable methods of collection and disposal.